Christy Hardin Smith @ 37

I have heard over the last couple of years of covering this investigation from many of the folks at the NYTimes who are LIVID about this mess — because it rubs off as a taint on all of them, even though they are scrupulously trying to do their jobs.

It’s a mess. And you are correct in terms of lack of support for Judy at the NYTimes — if it weren’t for Pinch Sulzburger (and even he has soured on his girl, from what I hear), she would have very few “friends” in the building at all. And that is being kind.

exactly right on both points. your sourcing on this, as with virtually everything i’ve ever read of yours, is totally solid.

Thus we now have the ethical and honest journalists of the New York Times, in addition to the ethical and honest journalists of the Wall Street Journal, basically held hostage to bad-faith, agenda-driven coverage promoted by the ownership of the newspaper they labor for: powerful newspapers in this case, with a very powerful corporation in one case (Dow Jones & Company, Inc. re the WSJ and its editorial page), that are promoting an agenda that is at odds with, and which dilutes, the “public’s right to know” pursued by the good-faith journalists on their staff.

As I elaborated along with others in this NextHurrah thread:

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.c…..he_ne.html

today’s powerful corporate-controlled media represents a “clear and present danger” to the public’s right to know (the truth), should a federal shield law for reporters come into existence, as far as I can see.

A federal shield law protecting reporters from Judicial Branch-enforced testimony is solving one problem (targeting of genuine government whistleblowers), by creating a vastly more insidious one (granting ‘carte blanche’ to powerful corporations – such as Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. and its FOX media empire and the corporations underwriting political and partisan columnists like Robert Novak – that would allow them to promote a private or corporate agenda in partnership with government insiders under state-sanctioned “secrecy”).

One answer to the need to avoid prosecution of good-faith government whistleblowers, I think, is effective, carefully-written GOOD-FAITH whistleblower protections from the Congress. The good-faith sources should be protected, not the corporations who happen to employ journalists. Any good-faith-source protection should carry over to the good-faith journalists who published their accounts, but any such privilege against prosecution/testimony should be very carefully drawn and limited to avoid any blanket protection or privilege that could enable corporate propaganda in the name of the First Amendment. The protected sources must have the public interest in mind with their leaks of classified information, with no self-serving personal agenda involved. Part of the process of writing such a bill should be a thorough review and reform of the classification procedures of the Executive Branch. The process is clearly out of control and out of hand, as eRiposte’s example here yesterday helped illustrate.

As Christy’s excellent post (which reads as though in the making for days or weeks) points out, a very robust public debate must be undertaken on these issues, and all ramifications thoroughly considered, so that we don’t inadvertently jump from the frying pan into the fire, as a result of the rogue behavior of the owners/managers of the NYT and Judy Miller’s complicity with bad-faith government insiders.

I think that Judith Miller is taking a more severe hit than is justified by her actions.

She believed people who were dishonest and she got a major story wrong. She made (bad) reportorial mistakes. I think I can agree with anyone who questions her judgment on that score.

However, she is also a reporter who went to jail to protect her source. That, I think, was a courageous and laudable thing. I don’t care that her source was someone I don’t like. That’s irrelevant. She stood up for a principle which I think that we, as liberals who believe in the first amendment, should support.

I also think that Miller, who years earlier had written a book about Saddam’s weapons programs——when they actually existed——got the story wrong because she failed to recognize the changes for Saddam and his hold on power. Miller was, in my view, naive and credulous——bad qualities for a reporter, to be sure. But not as odious as her critics paint her to be.

She only sought out people who would give her a dishonest soldier. There were lots of people at the time who knew she was pushing a story of lies. Naive – hardly. My journalist friends also have provided me with much evidence of her odious side as well. But again, you get ideologue journalists who are dishonest, lousy in research, and odious to colleagues now and again. The real story here is that the NYT upper echelon was pushing this story onto its front pages because it is they who wanted us to go to war in Iraq. That is the story here, and the reason they still back her.

When I out Bush as an alcoholic, I am not trying to call him names or hurt him. And I know about anonymity and the 12th tradition. However, the whole nation needs to understand this dynamic about the disease. The more he is pushed and confronted, the more he will push back in ways that seem completely implausible and crazy to most of us.

Someone said to me that referring to Bush in this way gives alcoholics a bad name. That’s not my point. We have a very sick man in a very big power point position. I think the nation keeps thinking “he won’t do that…” “He couldn’t possibly do this…” If anyone out there has ever lived with the disease then you know, there is only one way for this to go and we are all on the bus with him driving…unless someone stops him.

[…]

That explanation was the only one I could find to account for his nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court.

I think your analysis is accurate, thanks.

I agree. That’s the right way to grant confidentiality to a source. But once Miller promised confidentiality–however ill-advised–I can’t fault her for keeping her promise.

A reporter should ask, “is this person at risk of getting fired, demoted, or some such, if it became known that s/he was the source of these remarks? Are they taking a risk in hopes of getting out the truth that their higher-ups or other influential actors are covering up?”

If the answer is “Yes,” then they need and deserve your protection.

Otherwise, you’re just making a trade: they get their message out, without having their name on it, and you’ve sold yourself to get a story. If you go to the mats to ‘protect’ your source, you’re not being heroic; you’re just staying bought.

She believed people who were dishonest and she got a major story wrong. She made (bad) reportorial mistakes. I think I can agree with anyone who questions her judgment on that score.

However, she is also a reporter who went to jail to protect her source. That, I think, was a courageous and laudable thing. I don’t care that her source was someone I don’t like. That’s irrelevant. She stood up for a principle which I think that we, as liberals who believe in the first amendment, should support.

I also think that Miller, who years earlier had written a book about Saddam’s weapons programs——when they actually existed——got the story wrong because she failed to recognize the changes for Saddam and his hold on power. Miller was, in my view, naive and credulous——bad qualities for a reporter, to be sure. But not as odious as her critics paint her to be.

Big brouhaha on number of Iraq war wounded. Comes to 50K, DOD is trying to downsize number so it only includes troops who died in combat, not from being in bush’s vile oedipal war zone.

That clinic came from private money, not the govt. how sick is that, not to fund rehab for the troops wounded by your war.

What a creat service FDL is providing to our country and future historians.

The great preview this morning by ReddHedd, the unbelievable real-time transcript by emptywheel, the research by eRiposte, and perspective of Jeralyn.

Wow. Thank you so much!

I couldn’t agree more. All of the FDL analyses have been incredibly insightful and well-researched. Marcy especially is beyond belief in her tenacity and command of the case. Really tremendous reporting all around.

Congratulations!!

707

ITS A MAN, BABY!!